The Guardian is opening its newslists in a two-week long trial intended to foster more reader involvement with story input. Though a similar system exists on a local Swedish paper Norran, this is the first trial of its kind in the UK. A carefully selected list of which journalist is working on what story will be published on a daily blog and readers are encouraged to interact with journalists and editors to suggest angles and ask questions. The main forum for this will be twitter – hashtag #opennews – with readers wishing to share confidentialities sending direct messages. Obviously the paper can’t be fully transparent – scoops and embargoed stories will still be kept under wraps – but general output, reviews, events, sports news and comment, is open for all to see.   

So right now I can find out that Kim Willsher is working on a story about the Head of French internal security agency charged with spying on Le Monde journalist, and that Iris Mansour is wondering why bladers and cyclists can’t be friends. If I had a personal experience of blader/cyclist warfare, or indeed had been charged with spying in France, I would tweet the relevant journalist with a suggested angle or spice for the story.

This seems to be a healthy development in the media, a response to a general societal mistrust of journalists’ tactics and lack of transparency after the phone-hacking scandal. It’s also a natural development from the Guardian’s Comment Is Free forum; getting reader input before the inevitable corrective onslaught. There’s an element of citizens’ journalism being fused with the big players, too. We’ll be keeping an eye on whether the experiment benefits the Guardian over the course of the trial, but my initial thinking is this is a brave and potentially useful news-gathering tactic.

The controversy surrounding the proposed eviction of around 400 travellers from the Dale Farm site near Basildon in Essex has been played out furiously in the media over the last few weeks. Travellers, Gypsies and Roma are a polarising issue in the UK. Some people romanticise a nomadic way of life, moving with the seasons and being surrounded by family and friends. Others have had regrettable negative experiences of rising crime rates and plummeting property prices in their area when travellers move in. So the ongoing eviction battle was bound to highlight the polemical stance of many of our main media outlets. A brief comparison on the websites of a couple of our dailies gives us an impending “bloody stand-off between bailiffs and protesters” in the Daily Mail versus reports of the protesters calling for the “council to sit around the table and hold negotiations” in the Independent. Then we’ve got “the Gypsy community being let down and ignored” in the Guardian, against them receiving “£60,000 a year in housing and council tax benefits” in the Sun.     

The confusion continues: Should we rejoice at a “psychological boost” and praise the travellers for fighting “an exhaustive and inventive legal effort to thwart efforts to remove them” (Guardian) or should we brand them criminals as they “continue to fight moves” to be evicted (Sun)?

It’s all about perception, of course. We all read the paper and consume the media that backs-up our worldview and makes us feel vindicated and supported in our opinions. But altering the public perception and getting the intended message across is where PR comes into play.

The travellers who call Dale Farm home and their supporters have launched a good media campaign calling for compassion and solidarity. Many classic PR elements are present. Their twitter feed is updated regularly with relevant information and the latest on court rulings and media appearances. Nearly 1,500 people ‘Like’ the Facebook page hoping to save Dale Farm. They’re linked to videos on youtube and host questionnaires about their situation. Some supporters notably pulled a headline-grabbing stunt – hauling a banner over the front door of the council building – which ended with arrests. All of these elements mean that the debate stays in the public consciousness whilst the legal wrangling carries on.

For me the most surprising element of the coverage has been the presence of the BBC’s Fergal Keane on site. More normally associated with reporting from war torn nations and more exotic locations than Essex, his presence really lends gravitas to this story. Another notable PR stunt has seen the residents of Dale Farm apply to English Heritage for listed status for the entrance to the site. It’s been rejected, but this was a clever move, helping to perpetuate the story down different avenues. Further celebrity backing (from Vanessa Redgrave to Paddy Doherty – star of ‘My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding’ and winner of the 2011 ‘Celebrity Big Brother’) means that the story reaches an ever-larger audience with diverse interests.

Whatever the eventual outcome of the decade-long legal battle (a High Court decision is expected shortly) this issue has been an interesting one through which to study the way the media ticks. Let’s just hope the courts and not the media deliver the final verdict, though.

Bribery allegations and scandal seem to be looming over FIFA like a black cloud. With their reputation arguably in tatters and brand perception plummeting, one cannot help but wonder if FIFA can ever salvage their image.

Just last week on the run up to the FIFA presidential elections it was brought to light that candidate Mohammed Bin Hamman and Vice President Jack Warner were suspended after they allegedly made a last minute attempt to buy votes from several key Caribbean Football Union delegates at a CONCACAF meeting in May. Hamman also claimed that current president of FIFA Sepp Blatter, knew of bribery taking place and turned a blind eye on the dealings.

Since then, Blatter has been cleared and re-instated as FIFA president in an unopposed vote, with questions arising that his one-man presidency race is simply a farce.

David Cameron, when asked about the corruption and bribery allegations, said that FIFA’s reputation is at an “all-time low” and they have to become more “transparent and accountable” when it comes to elections. There is clearly the need in order to regenerate the brand.

The fact that their major sponsors, such as Coca-Cola, Addidas and Emirates, who all pay between £100-£300m to be linked with the ‘beautiful game,’ have all expressed major concern could call time on FIFA. Taking into the account how much endorsement the sponsor giants bring to the brand and how little they tolerate being associated with negative publicity, FIFA are dangerously close to being given the red card.

Research from YouGov/SMG SportIndex also found that between the 30^th April and the 30^th May when allegations hit the media, FIFA’s reputation and impression figures plummeted dramatically, strongly suggesting the brand is a long way from regaining its credibility and status.

In a crisis situation it can only be resolved when one takes action. So in what way can FIFA prevent being kicked out the game once and for all?

First they need to establish who is to blame and who is not; getting to the route of the problem. Then they can get rid of the guilty and move forward in clawing back some sort of integrity. FIFA need to hire an external probing team that are unbiased and incorrupt.

Freeh Group International Europe is said to be working closely with the FIFA ethics committee, but there is concern that the investigation will be biased and in US favour as owner Louis Freer is American. There needs to be a completely external organisation in charge of proceedings.

There also needs to be complete openness, no more rumours or cover-ups; everything needs to be laid bare and all evidence available for everyone to see. This separates what is true and what is not true, putting allegations and any finger-pointing to rest.

Then, can the rebuilding of reputation and image commence.                                              

There is clearly a lot to be done to salvage the tarnished reputation of FIFA. It’s going to be tricky and time consuming. Getting to the route of the problem is integral in resolving the crisis and can be done.

The media currently is buzzing over the rich and famous hiding behind the super-injunctions. With an increasing amount being ousted, inevitably one question can be raised; are they really working anyway?

The “Super Injunction,” a phrase coined by Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger, is not merely a gagging order taken out to prohibit the media from reporting a story, but goes further and even blocks the right to know there is an injunction in place. Any person who fails to comply with the injunction may face court action, be fined or faced with criminal penalties.

Formed as part of the Human Rights Act in 1998, the super-injunction is aimed at protecting an individual’s privacy, as well as protecting their right to freedom of expression.

However, in this day and age, where media keeps fragmenting and online development is growing at such a fast-growing pace, it is (a) becoming much easier for news to spread, hence (b) making it an awful lot harder to manage what’s published.

There is no doubt that there is a strong public interest in celebrity gossip and controversy in today’s society. It makes big news. Never a day goes by without hearing of some sort of celebrity scandal being splashed all over the tabloids and online.

And with more and more super-injunction cases exposed, it makes gossip more intriguing to audiences when only half the story is told. Ultimately, the more a story is kept under the table, ironically the more newsworthy it becomes.

Many audiences and users turn to the internet because it is far more difficult to regulate who says what online. It could be argued that with so much speculation and exposure, super-injunctions per se are insufficient and arguably obsolete. The judicial system is clearly failing.

It is clear to see the correlation between the huge use of social networking site Twitter to reveal the super-injunctions and the failure of them adequately protecting their clients.

Take for example the recent news that an anonymous Twitter user has forwarded at least 2 million followers a list of confidential information of the private lives of celebrities who have recently taken out super-injunctions.

Claire Perry, House Of Commons Justice Committee member said of the news, “This is making a mockery of the existing law and we need to make sure that the law catches up with the technology.”

And because Twitter is based in San Francisco it makes it extremely hard to trace the users behind the allegations.

However, recent steps have been taken to reveal the anonymous users posting statements that are potentially libellous. One case in particular being how South Tyneside Council was granted confidential data from Twitter by US courts to identify “Mr Monkey”, a user allegedly posting untruths against council leaders. This may lead to others from the UK following suit and heading to the US courts to take action.

Yet it is important to note, it is a very tricky business trying to take out a UK court order on a US company such as Twitter, which may put many off the complex process in revealing the identities of the alleged.

Media Lawyer Mark Stephens, when interviewed on BBC Newsbeat said the rich and famous shouldn’t be anonamised to cover up their “away games” and that they should deal with the consequences of their actions. He remarked that “people will talk” and that ultimately it is our “taxpayer’s right to know who is in court”.

Ultimately it seems in today’s society the super-injunction is clearly not protecting those for which it was created. The law clearly is not keeping up with the increasing rapidity of technology. People cannot be stopped from talking and with the high amount of online users makes the whole matter almost impossible to police and therefore enforce. So the question has to be asked in the light of all of this: are the super-injunctions there to protect those that need it?